In its October 24 edition, the Washington Post runs a lengthy report on violent skirmishes in West Bank olive groves.  The article, by Jerusalem bureau chief William Booth, cites incidents involving Israeli settlers who attack, damage, or destroy Palestinian olive trees.  The Post plays the piece atop the front of its “World” section.  With copious color photos, Booth’s coverage is generously allotted more than a half page.  

The six-column headline reads: “In West Bank olive groves, a harvest of violence – Palestinians brace for attacks by Israeli settlers who the U.N. says destroyed or damaged nearly 11,000 trees last year.”

The article, however, is flawed by a couple of glaring faults – both exhibiting a pro-Palestinian bias against Israel.

To wit:

1. Despite ample space devoted to his article, Booth uses it only to decry violent Jewish attacks on Palestinian olive trees.  He barely even glosses over violent Palestinian attacks on Jewish olive trees, thus leaving an erroneous impression that violence stems from Israeli attacks, with Palestinians portrayed as victims.

The real picture is quite different.  There is an unfortunate pattern of violence coming from both sides, which Booth studiously avoids.  Not until the 14^th paragraph is there the slightest hint that Jewish olive farmers also have been attacked by West Bank Palestinians.  Booth briefly quotes an Israeli policeman as saying that “incidents this year have involved damage to both Palestinian and Jewish olive trees.”  Booth, however, shows no inclination whatever to follow up and report even a single incident when Israeli farmers have become victims of violent attacks against their olive trees.  Israeli misbehavior gets full coverage; Palestinian misbehavior is hidden away.

2. Broadening his focus to the full scope of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, Booth writes that “there are now some 350,000 Jewish settlers living in 121 communities in the West Bank, settlements that most of the world’s governments consider illegal under international law because they were built on land occupied by the Israeli military. Many Israeli leaders do not consider the land ‘occupied’ but ‘disputed.’”  Booth, however, opts for the former – land “occupied” by the Israeli military.

Booth’s insistence that Jewish settlements are “occupied” territory is baseless.  To tag a piece of land as “occupied” assumes that prior sovereignty of such land was wrested away by an “occupier.”  But that doesn’t fit the West Bank at all.  There never was Palestinian sovereignty on any part of the West Bank.  Or anywhere else, for that matter.  During World War 2, one could write that France, Belgium, or Holland was “occupied” by German forces.  But that was because these were sovereign countries that lost their land to an “occupier.”  In the West Bank, the last previous sovereign was the Ottoman Empire.  Since that empire's disappearance after World War 1, West Bank land has awaited sovereignty to this very day.  Ergo, without a legitimate and/or lasting sovereign, it cannot be presumed to have an “occupier.”  U.N. resolutions make it clear that Palestinian sovereignty remains a work in progress.

Booth rightly acknowledges that Israelis prefer to call the West Bank “disputed” territory rather than “occupied.”  It’s too bad that he doesn’t use the former term himself.  He’d be on much sounder ground and in line with international law if he waited for Palestinian statehood rather than jump the gun and grant Palestinians non-existent sovereignty.

Leo Rennert is a former White House correspondent and Washington bureau chief of McClatchy Newspapers.